[1] The starting point for the statute of limitations of insurance claims

[2] In a case where the head of a securities company, which is a guarantor under the fidelity Guarantee Insurance Contract, embezzled the customer's deposit, the case holding that the holder of the right to claim for insurance was not aware of the occurrence of the insurance accident without negligence because it is objectively unclear whether the insurance

[1] Where there are special circumstances where the holder of the right to claim the insurance accident could not know the occurrence of the insurance accident without negligence because it is objectively unclear whether the insurance accident occurred, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the insurance accident is in progress from the time when he knew or could have known the occurrence of the insurance accident. However, barring such circumstances, the extinctive prescription

[2] In a case where a securities company, which is the guarantor under a contract of fidelity Guarantee, embezzled money received from a customer without depositing the deposited money in the account, the case holding that the act of embezzlement of the guarantor does not constitute a case where the securities company did not know of the occurrence of an accident without negligence because it is not clear that the act of embezzlement of the guarantor took advantage of his position in the course of performing its business for the securities company, and the act of embezzlement of the guarantor took advantage of his position and constitutes an insured event taken over by the insurer, even though it did not withdraw and embezzled the money deposited in the securities company, and the securities company came to know of the embezzlement only after the customer's authenticity was made, and the securities company asserts that the above embezzlement was not a deposit, but merely a monetary loan between the guarantor and the customer, and that the guarantor did not withdraw the money from the above customer's deposit account before it and embezzled it, and that there was no other crime record.

[1] Article 662 of the Commercial Act, Article 166(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 662 of the Commercial Act, Article 166(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da39822 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2240), Supreme Court Decision 97Da36521 delivered on November 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3772), Supreme Court Decision 96Da1966 delivered on February 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 711), Supreme Court Decision 97Da5422 delivered on May 12, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1610)

Substitute Securities Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Ho-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Dong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na8785 delivered on October 20, 1998

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. The lower court determined that, inasmuch as the Plaintiff Company did not know of the fact that the instant insurance accident occurred between the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant’s branch office around December 193, 199, Nonparty 1, who worked as the principal of the Plaintiff Company, was the surety, and the period from December 22, 1993 to December 21, 194, the Plaintiff Company concluded a life insurance contract with the Plaintiff Company to compensate for its property loss (including losses caused by the Plaintiff’s legal liability for damages) by taking advantage of its own position during the insurance period when the Plaintiff Company’s management of the Plaintiff Company’s insurance accident was stolen, robbery, embezzlement, or embezzlement, or breach of trust. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to whether the Defendant’s insurance accident occurred during the period of 9 years after the Defendant’s deposit of the Plaintiff Company’s insurance claim to the Defendant’s branch office and the Defendant’s deposit of the Plaintiff Company with the Defendant’s insurance claim to the effect that the Defendant’s deposit of KRW 100,5,0000,00, etc.

2. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below.

In case where there are special circumstances where the claimant could not know the occurrence of the insurance accident without negligence because it is objectively unclear whether the insurance accident occurred, the extinctive prescription of the insurance claim is in progress from the time when he knew or could have known the occurrence of the insurance accident. However, barring such circumstances, the extinctive prescription of the insurance claim, in principle, runs from the time when the insurance accident occurred (see this Court Decision 97Da36521, Nov. 11, 1997).

In this case, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the non-party 1, the head of the branch office of the plaintiff company, has embezzled money received at the request of the plaintiff company to deposit the money to his account from Korea-type exchange, which was traded with the above branch, without having deposited it into his account. If the non-party 1's above embezzlement is an act of taking advantage of his position in the course of performing his duties and constitutes an insured event acquired by the defendant in the course of performing his duties, the non-party 1 embezzled the money received at the request of the plaintiff company, not by withdrawing and embezzlement the money deposited with the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company knew that the non-party 1 did not withdraw and embezzled the money deposited with the plaintiff company, and the money embezzled by the non-party 1 was not a deposit against the plaintiff company. Even if the non-party 1 did not know that the money was embezzled before, it is difficult to view that the non-party 1's above embezzlement act was objectively viewed as an act of trust and supervision, and even if it did not have been negligent in managing the plaintiff 1's company.

Nevertheless, solely based on the above circumstances, the lower court deemed that the occurrence of the insurance accident in this case constitutes a case where the Plaintiff was unaware of the occurrence of the insurance accident without negligence, and determined on August 5, 1996 that the starting point of calculating the extinctive prescription period for the Plaintiff’s insurance claim was not the market price of the insurance accident. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the starting point of the extinctive prescription period for the insurance claim, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the allegation in the grounds of

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)